Comments on: And just when you thought the Catholic Church couldn’t out-crazy itselfhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/01/09/40520
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyMon, 07 Aug 2017 19:21:39 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.5By: Priya Lynnhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/01/09/40520#comment-123752
Thu, 17 May 2012 15:48:54 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=40520#comment-123752Sacerdotus the morality of livining in accordance with being LGBT is easily defended. The essence of morality is “Do whatever you want, but harm no one.”. Living in accordance with being LGBT harms no one and is thus moral, your attempts to destroy those relationships harms LGBT and is by definition immoral. Whether being LGBT is rooted in genetics or the brain is irrelevant so save your ignorant comments.
]]>By: Timothy Kincaidhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/01/09/40520#comment-123749
Thu, 17 May 2012 15:26:56 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=40520#comment-123749Sacerdotus,

We are in agreement that “the LGBT lifestyle” is a social construct. Which is why gay people never use the term.

But I do find it amusing that individuals who actively seek the civilly mandated mistreatment of gay people (often at the bidding of your religious leader) are so constricted in language, so bound by linguistic dictates, that they are forced to say nonsensical statements like the one you arrogantly presented.

You have been instructed not to speak of gay people but to always and without exception use “lifestyle”. But the only consequence is that you use it as a replacement for when you want to say homosexuality or gay. For those who use the word “lifestyle” only when they mean lifestyle, your shackled language reveals a shackled mind.

]]>By: Richard Rushhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/01/09/40520#comment-123736
Thu, 17 May 2012 13:38:23 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=40520#comment-123736Sacerdotus, I looked at your blog. You will make a great priest! You’ve swallowed all the Catholic Church’s indoctrination, you’re unqualified to lecture others about sexuality, and you’re nasty. If you can just manage to keep your hands off children, you’ll do fine.
]]>By: Williamhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/01/09/40520#comment-123726
Thu, 17 May 2012 12:41:31 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=40520#comment-123726Sacerdotus, every lifestyle is a social construct. I invite you to provide proof of the existence of the heterosexual LIFESTYLE in genetics or the brain. If you canâ€™t, then save your ignorant comments.
]]>By: Sacerdotushttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/01/09/40520#comment-123704
Thu, 17 May 2012 04:29:33 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=40520#comment-123704The LGBT lifestyle is a social construct. It cannot be defended logically nor biologically speaking. I invite anyone here to provide proof of its existence in genetics or the brain, if not, then save your ignorant comments.
]]>By: Ben In Oaklandhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/01/09/40520#comment-114682
Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:47:11 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=40520#comment-114682Richard–

the best way to deal with the issue of atheist v. agnostic is to become what I am– an It-Doesn’t-Matter-ist.

Jesus himself hinted at this (Matt. 10:29) when he said: “Aren’t two sparrows sold for a penny? Not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s permission.”

IDM’s– and most of my atheist friends are in this camp– look at it this way. Let us suppose for a moment that God is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent (but not the thoroughly unpleasant, bad-tempered, and amoral) being that religionists imagine him to be.

Precisely what would be different in the world? Absolutely nothing. With or without God’s permission, the sparrow still falls.

If our notion of god is not correct– he is not omni-everything and/or he is not the only one– then he is merely an immensely powerful being, not a god at all, much like Q is Star Trek, but without the sense of play and humour.

Epicurus came pretty much to the same conclusion in his discussion of god as the source of morality and/or goodness.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

I kinda almost agree with you but I draw the lines differently. I’ve experienced atheists who were full of certainty and a good many religious people who were ever seeking to challenge and expand their understanding.

But as for the “certain”, it has long been my contention that the opposite of faith isn’t doubt, but certainty. Faith believes enough to allow itself to be challenged and grow. Certainty is a frightened place that plugs its ears and says lalalalala lest it be confronted with anything that might call for change.

In my interactions with religious folk I’ve ran into both people of faith and people of certainty – sometimes who have the exact same beliefs. The difference was that one listened and looked to see how your experiences fit in their framework (and if your experiences didn’t fit well, they spent time later thinking about it). The other just dismissed anything that didn’t align with their preconceived notions.

Perhaps you are right that the very “certain” are boring and frustrated. But I think that above all the are very frightened. Not that they won’t get soup (or heaven). That’s a mistake that many assume. But what they really fear is that they might be wrong and that their whole universe is unstable. If their god/doctrine/dogma is challenged, then they have no security at all. And hence the desperate need to be absolutely right and absolutely certain.

Keep thinking that way Richard and youâ€™re going to turn from an atheist to an agnostic.

;)

It’s funny you should say that. Actually I don’t feel completely comfortable with either identity, but if I’m forced to choose, I’d go with agnostic.

‘Atheist’ seems to imply a higher level of certainty than I feel comfortable with. And while I don’t believe there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that the Bible’s Judeo-Christian God (for example) exists, I’m comfortable with believing there are still V-A-S-T areas of unknowns in the universe, and that brings me closer to ‘agnostic.’ I’m perfectly comfortable saying, “I don’t know” about a multitude of issues.

To the credit of atheists, they are generally eager to increase their knowledge of the universe, while those with religious certainty seem content to settle for “God did it.”

Absolute religious certainty must be really boring. Maybe that’s a factor in why so many of the religiously-certain are busybodies. And apparently, maintaining certainty depends, to some extent, upon controlling the behavior and beliefs of others, and that has to be really frustrating. So there you have it: Boring. Frustrating. And you just know they are constantly walking on eggshells out of fear that their loving God may say “no soup heaven for you.” No wonder they always seem so miserable.

Why is the word, crazy, in quotation marks? It is really funny how extremists love to put random words in quotes. It is also very telling that they speak about homosexuality instead of homosexuals or gays. That is an attempt to dehumanize us. They aren’t opposing equality for homosexuality, they are opposing equality for homosexual people.

“Two males and two females just does not make sense biologically speaking.”

And celibacy does? I can never understand how anyone can be so illogical as to condemn homosexual relationships for being infertile while insisting on celibacy as an alternative.

]]>By: Regan DuCassehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/01/09/40520#comment-114458
Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:51:44 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=40520#comment-114458I recall some studies done of married couples who chose not to have children. The sampling was actually pretty large. Thousands reporting from all over the country. They made comparisons of such couples who were city dwellers as opposed to rural. They broke down age ranges and health status to rule out involuntary infertility or the elderly.

Then they compared parent couples to non parent couples and the findings were that in this comparison, non parent couples were MUCH happier than parent couples.
Less familial tension. More time to pursue interests or professions. More disposable income, that sort of thing.

Considering how many children end up abandoned to welfare, single parenthood and foster care: I’d say that non parent married folks study would be hard to dispute. And this was something that came out over two decades ago.
Wonder if that same result would hold steady now?